Posted on 02/18/2005 11:27:18 PM PST by churchillbuff
Any way you slice it - Lincoln stunk as a president.
Nah. In that example the UN = federal government. We do conduct missions with the UN. Again, if you were in the forces today, and the US attempted withdrawal from the UN and a UN officer ordered you to fire on US troops, what would you do?
The UN isn't in a position to issue orders to US troops.
Article I, Section 10 and Article IV, Section 3.
Let's go through this sentence by sentence.
Section. 10.
Clause 1:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Nothing in here about secession
Clause 2:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
Still nothing about Secession
Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Nothing about secession in here either.
Section 3
Clause 1:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
Applies to new states, Nothing here about Secession
but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State;
Again, new state, nothing about Secession.
nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States,
Again, new state, nothing about Secession.
without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Still nothing about Secession
Clause 2:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;
This covers property belonging to the US. The states did not, and do not belong to the Federal Government.
and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Again, still nothing concerning Secession.
Those were the only clauses in those areas. Am I missing something or is there something in there hidden that I don't see. Nothing in that article or section refers to a state not having the right to seceded.
Not missing, ignoring. Article IV, Section 3 states that the approval of a majority of the other states is required before a state can be admitted to the Union. This is achieved through a majority vote in both houses of Congress. Congressional approval is also needed for states to combine, thus removing a state from the Union, or for states to split into two or more states. Implicit in this is the need for the approval of the other states for leaving altogether. Yet you would have us believe that that is the one change in status not requiring congressional approval.
Article I, Section 10 lays out a whole host of powers forbidden to states completely. They can't enter into agreements with other states, can't coin money, pass bills of attainder or ex post facto law, etc. It goes on to list other powers forbidden to the states without the approval of the other states, again through a vote in both houses of Congress. One common thread in these powers forbidden to the states is that exercising them unilaterally could have a negative impact on other states. Yet you would have us believe that the one power that the states can exercise unilaterally is to walk out completely, regardless of the impact this may have on the other states, without those states have a say in the matter.
The idea that powers, explicit and implicit, are granted to the United States or denied the states is not a new concept. They were recognized by the very first Supreme Court. And they make more sense to me than your arguement does.
The most important problem is your class warfare arrogance argument based on your ignorance of the real culture of the pre-antebellum South. There were wealthy farmers in the South, as well as wealthy manufactureres in the North. There were massive homes in Biloxi and Mobile as well as in New York, Boston, and Providence. That coupled with the belief the practice of slavery justified killing anyone – innocent or guilty – essentially made the invasion of the South an act of righteousness for a new morality. And that is expressed by your comment "all men are created equal", a comment not in the US Constitution, and not a legal justification for any action of the government.
"And are you saying that the government was in the slave trade business or are you trying to say that private Northern concerns were in the international slave trade business?"
Private Northern concerns were in the slave trading business while the US government, legally bound to stop the trade, largely overlooked it for 45 years.
"In any case, what was the point in saying that 'Lincoln's new job would pay a salary financed by money raised from the sale of slave produced goods?' ".
To point out to you that a moral imperative, so fundamental to your arguments, did not exist for Lincoln or belong to the government as you so readily believe and accept.
The US Constitution was written by moral men with concepts of morality as underpinnings of the document. They never envisioned, nor wrote law, to allow one section of the country to impose their concept of morality on the other.
Sir, you are quite correct. The right of secession is not prohibited to the states. There is no power delegated to the federal government to prohibit secession. There is no power delegated to authorize the use of force against a state seceding. The 10th amendment has a meaning, and it means that what powers the federal government possess are delegated, and what is not delegated by the states to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to be exercised, are reserved to the states.
Despite all the puff and protestations you see emanating from certain posters, all they can come up with is 'implicit' powers, or a protest against unilateral exercise. Yet again, nothing in the Constitution prohibits unilateral action by a state.
And all your puff and posturing aside, you have no more to definitively make your case, either. It is your opininion that unilateral secession is not prohibited. The Supreme Court has disagreed with you.
Please explain how the "truth" makes me sick. Don't take my word for it, read the "Slave Narratives"
Read my posts in this thread, and you will get your answer.
Lincoln was a tyrant. "Thus be it ever to Tyrants!"
We agree....My contention is that he was messing with a Sovereign nation, and was wrong to do so.
Lookout Brother....according to "Petronski the Terrible, the Liberator of Oppressed Slaves" you are SICK...:)
(SARCASM)
When did he state that?
Try Reading his Post # 234:
Most telling, Lincoln tells EXACTLY why there WILL be a war:
"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, ..."
I've read Lincoln's first inaugural. I've even read the parts that you didn't bother to quote. My question is when did Lincoln state that the reason for the blockade was to collect tariff revenue?
WEll, what do YOU consider "duties & imports"?
Seems the same to me.
You would be wrong... it was perfectly Constitutional, and Lincoln had no part in it. Read some West Virginia history.
When it was obvious that the secessionists would carry the day in Richmond, nearly all members from the Western counties of Virginia, and a few from the eastern, walked out of the legislature refusing to participate and formed their own rump legislature in Alexandria. That legislature was recognized by Congress and Representatives were given seats in Congress. The Alexandria legislature gave it's approval to forming a new state since regardless of the outcome of the war, the vast majority of people in the western counties wanted to be away from the tidewater aristocrats who dominated Richmond and had always treated the west as second-class citizens. Congress accepted the petition for statehood in 1863.
It followed the Constitutional requirements to the letter.
You approve of the assassination of Lincoln?
Very bad form. It is polite to ping those mentioned in a post.
I've already posted my problems with the slave narratives. I hope you can find my post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.